Dan Rather Commentary

[Tobiasly]

I'm disappointed w/ this Phoenix browser... I woulda hoped it would prevent annoying shit like that.

[wolf]

Gee. I guess I'm the only person who thought the marquis was amusing ...

[slang]

Just you and me wolf


Anyway, I killed it. If it was the usual whiners that were bitching about it, I would have left it. Syc and Tob dont seem to fit into that catagory.

[Tobiasly]

My reply was kinda tongue-in-cheek, slang.. I really don't care that much, except stuff like that could lead to HTML wars everywhere (although I'm sure UT would immediately smack that down).

[tw]

Originally posted by slang
I dont expect to convince anyone here that there is a smoking gun proving Iraq should be attacked. Smoking guns are rare, and when they exist, there is little debate.

Hard right wing extremists need no facts (no smoking gun) to justify actions. After all, because smoking guns are so rare, then Milosevikic needed no smoking gun to justify massacre of non-Serbian Yugoslavians. Is that proof that smoking guns are rare? No. It is proof that the smoking gun did not exist. Extremists are so desperate to hype their agenda that a smoking gun would be produced everytime - if it exists.

There is always a smoking gun to justify war - and must be. War is that serious. Pearl Harbor. Invasion of S Korea. Invasion of Kuwait. When a smoking gun could not be found, then one had to be invented. Gulf of Tonkin. Standard to US principles. We don't go to war without a smoking gun. A new generation didn't learn from history?

It is dangerous - albeit against American principles - to endorse war without a smoking gun. Too many only need emotion to justify their bias. Therefore invented is a new idea that the smoking gun is rare. Fiction.

Saddam is not a threat to the US and will not be until he is first a threat to his neighbors. None - not one - of his neighbors fear Saddam because, unlike bin Laden, Saddam is not attacking anyone - nor planning to attack anyone. Most every major US ally says Saddam is not a threat worthy of war. Those allies are the only signficant source of American intelligence. So where does George Jr get his incite? From people who now invent an idea that smoking guns are rare? This is right wing extremist hyperbole.

Its been thirty years. A whole new generation exists that did not learn how right wing extremists will do anything to promote war. A whole new generation must learn how dangerous Curtis LeMay types can be - people who need no smoking gun to justify war. It was Curtis LeMay who said we were already at war with the USSR and that the American public just did not know it yet. (No smoking gun required.) Reality was that right wing extremist was openly trying to promote war with the USSR. Right wing extremists must claim that smoking guns are rare to justify war - facts be damned.

In February, George Jr decided to return Saddam as enemy #1. Of course. The George Jr administration contains hard right wing extremists. Many were the same people who screwed up during the George Sr administration - which is why Saddam is still there. They want revenge - and don't need no stinking smoking gun to justify their right to remove Saddam.

Both bin Laden and the Palestinians have been undesireable destractions to this George Jr administration that came into power making the attack on Saddam its number one priority - and made that declaration again, secretly, in February. Because of that priority, this adminstration has done everything possible to connect Saddam with both al Qaeda and with the Intafada II. The administration failed when moderates (therefore called lefty liberals by our extremist brethern) exposed admininstration lies repeatedly.

Dan Rather leans left? Of course. Everyone leans left of Slang. Many from my generation died uselessly because same extremists feared truth - and therefore labeld the NY Times, Washington Post, Daniel Ellsburg, Walter Conkite - and even 'Dan Rather' as pinko lefty liberals. Reported were the facts - including the Pentagon Papers that demonstrated no smoking gun could have existed. Pentagon Papers demonstrated how right wing extremists made American the enemy of another nation - a potential ally - because extremists need no smoking gun to justify their biases. So instead attack the messenger - the NY Times, Washington Post, Daniel Ellsburg - and Dan Rather. Today we know that people such as Dan Rather were on 'hate' lists because they only told the truth - at the expense of right wing extremist rhetoric.

Oh how history repeats itself. The right wing extremist again claim no smoking gun is necessary to promote war. Those same extremists again label Dan Rather as liberal extremists. After all, if a political message is more important than reality, then one must attack people like Dan Rather. Extremists are more concerned with their ideas than the facts - smoking gun be damned. Facts become the enemy of extremists - as they did during the Cuban Missile Crisis - as they did during VietNam - and as they do concering Iraq. Fact remains - Saddam is not a threat to the US and is not even considered a threat to his neighbors. But he is a threat to the integrity of so many in George Jr's administration who should go down into history as having screwed up the Iraqi surrender in 1991.


That smoking gun must exist to justify war - or be just like those same anti-American extremists who got us into Viet Nam by outrightly lying. Smoking guns are rare when bias is more important than the facts. Dan Rather has been attacked only because he publishes facts. The fact is this president considers Saddam a greater threat than bin Laden - bias being more important than facts from history, our allies, or even reality. Bin Laden at least declares war on the US and all US allies. Saddam does nothing but remind administration officials of how they screwed it up in 1991.

[Undertoad]

None - not one - of his neighbors fear Saddam

This statement has been made several times on the Cellar, and it's incorrect.

There is one neighbor that absolutely fears Saddam, as it works on nationwide smallpox innoculation and announces again and again that any bombing of its nation will be answered with full and determined retaliation.

[MaggieL]

Anybody who sees deep parallels between Vietnam and Iraq is smoking something stronger than gun. :-)

[Tobiasly]

Originally posted by tw
Too many only need emotion to justify their bias.

That's a pretty funny statement for you to make, since your bias obviously is deeply rooted in emotion. As has been pointed out before, your obsessive need to refer to Bush as "George Jr." shows that you have trouble seeing anything he does objectively.

I couldn't stand Clinton most of the time, but at least when talking about him I referred to him as such instead of "Billy" or "Slick Willy" or some other diminutive nickname.

Is it so difficult for you to utter the phrase "the Bush administration"? And don't tell us you're trying to distinguish between father and son; I think everyone is pretty clear you're talking about the current president.

[jaguar]

Aa long intractable conflict dissolving into a bloody internecine without an exit plan I agree Maggie, no parallels whatsoever between Afghanistan ^H^H^H^H^H^H^H Chechnya^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^ Vietnam.

Originally posted by jaguar Afghanistan ^H^H^H^H^H^H^H Chechnya^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^ Vietnam.

What is Afgha ^ Vietnam?

Sorry, I just figure you should do it right if you're gonna do it. Like "Fuck yo^H^H^H^H^H^H^HWhat's up?"

[MaggieL]

Originally posted by jaguar
Aa long intractable conflict dissolving into a bloody internecine without an exit plan I agree Maggie, no parallels whatsoever between Afghanistan ^H^H^H^H^H^H^H Chechnya^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^ Vietnam.

Gee...even I know the difference between Afghanistan, Chechnya and Iraq...and they say us Murikans don't know geography. I also know the difference between Jihadists and the Viet Cong. The problem with knee-jerk reactions is that all the jerks are pretty much the same, even if the stimuli were quite different.

I do get weary of debating politics with high school kids; I don't care how un-PC it is.

[tw]

Originally posted by Tobiasly
Is it so difficult for you to utter the phrase "the Bush administration"? And don't tell us you're trying to distinguish between father and son; I think everyone is pretty clear you're talking about the current president.

Both administration were discussed. Should I call both 'Bush administration' to confuse everyone? The expression "Bush administration" is simply insulting and confusing the reader who must 'assume' which administration was being referred to - possibly with embarrassing responses from a confused interpretation. Quite logical to define both men and both administrations by their proper names - George Jr and George Sr. No nicknames are used.

However the term 'slick Willy' is intended only to be insulting. Serious political TV news shows don't use the term 'slick Willy'. But the expression 'George Jr' and 'George Sr' are often used in discussions involving both administrations. It is their names.

Presented are realities of politics. If sticking to my post's purpose, then posting would be about the 'smoking gun'. War without a 'smoking gun' reason is simply contrary to American principals. When America violated those principals - VietNam - then American violated another nation and lost the war. It is fundamentally wrong to justify war without an honest 'smoking gun'.

Those who don't need a 'smoking gun' to justify war have gone down in world history more often as villians. Hitler fictionalized a 'smoking gun' on Czechoslovakia to justify an invasion. Nazi propaganda films are considered classics because of how a ficticious 'smoking gun' was created to justify an invasion and the resulting capitulation. Those films set new standards for propaganda. Their purpose - a 'smoking gun' is required even by the Nazis to justify war.

Why then avoid the point with repeated nonsensical posts about George Jr / George Sr when even national news discussion groups use those expressions to delineate between both administrations. Those expressions are not insulting. Furthermore, those news discussion groups don't use insulting expressions such as 'slick Willy'. But then I am not so intolerant as to complain about another's silly use of Clinton insults. The insult is irrelevant, being only silly emotion, and not worthy of Cellar posts. This reply is only because one uses the insult 'slick Willy' and yet gets upset when George Jr and George Sr are described by names on their birth certificiates.

I hope you understand why I find your complaint ironically amusing - and maybe facetious? You would use an insulting term for Clinton and get no response. I just post their proper and legal names - and get criticized emotionally. Amusing - but avoid the issue.

[jaguar]

Pity, if your head was not so far up your ass you might have noticed the slightly more subtle message in there. There are few similarities between Vietnam and a possible war on Iraq, a few, but not many. On the other hand the similarities between Chechnya and Afghanistan are growing by the day - large, high tech occuping force doggy by small band of diehard motherfuckers with a death wish using techniques like remote mines and hit and run rocket attacks to attempt to wear down a far larger and better armed force. The paralelles are amazing, and the curious thing is the way in which the Afghanis are adopting exactly the same tactics as the Chechens, i doubt that is a coincidence.

In the same way Afghanistan is a mass of feuding warloads and ravaliries which often explode in bloodshed, Iraq is similar. The diference been a powerful central government stamping out dissidence with an iron fist. Remove the government and replace with a US mission similar to the 'nation building' operation in afghanistan and you'll end up with a similar situation.

There are differences on many levels, but attempts to turn Iraq into a client state will not be without many problems.

[tw]

Originally posted by Undertoad
There is one neighbor that absolutely fears Saddam, as it works on nationwide smallpox innoculation and announces again and again that any bombing of its nation will be answered with full and determined retaliation.

And that one regional nation is not a neighbor of Iraq. Iraq's neighbors - Iran, Kuwait, Saudia Arabia, Jordan, Syria, and Turkey. All most likely have spies in Iraq. Many would also be primary intelligence sources for the US. None find anything in Iraq that is a threat to them or to the US. No 'smoking gun' exists to justify war on Iraq.

Israel, however, is a worried nation because its current administration has done almost everything possible to incite 1) Intafada II and 2) Islamic nationalism (from Morroco to Indonesia and deep into Africa) to the destruction of Israel. The first was done intentionally by Likud. The second is an unavoidable consequence of the first. The scary part would be that Israelis are too arrogent to understand the dangers of point 2.

No such anti-Israeli hatred has been so widespread since before days of Carter. But then too many Israeli people unfortunately inspire hatred starting with the assasination of Rabin - as was all but directly called for by Likud party members. Hate becomes business as usual among too many Israeli - something that did not exist in the days of Rabin. Hate is just what Sharon has used throughout history to promote himself - every time.

Israel is now in the unenviable position of becoming an emotional target of hate if only one Arab nation attacks it; and Israel responds. Ironically this is why American Evangelical Christians so want the current administrations (of Israel and America) to make things worse - even by openly advocating military explusion of Palestinians from the occupied territories in direct violation of all UN Resolutions.

Yes, Israel does have much to fear from Iraq. But mostly because their elected government wants Israel in that position and because powers external to Israel see this as the last chapter in the New Testament. Still, Israel is not a neighbor of Saddam - which is why I did not say (with care) 'regional powers'. Israel's government has setup Israel up to be a perfect target for Saddam. Israel has much to fear because of how Likud party has so enflamed the entire Arab world in the past few years. Even worse, the Arab world is completely justified in being so angry.

None of these Israeli events is good news for any American. Christian right wing extremists would not disagree with this analysis - except the part that says an Arab-Israeli war is bad for the world. Evangelical Christians look forward to such a war - as a good thing - with the death of most Jews and the conversion of those that remain.

BTW, would a smoking gun be necessary to start such as war? Unfortunately, it may already exist. Events in the region - well beyond Iraqi's neighbors - could avalanche quickly. Warning to those so quick to advocate unjustified war in any regional nation.

[jaguar]